Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?

Nathan Dieckmann, Branden B. Johnson, Robin Gregory, Marcus Mayorga, Paul K.J. Han, Paul Slovic

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    15 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Expert disputes can present laypeople with several challenges including trying to understand why such disputes occur. In an online survey of the US public, we used a psychometric approach to elicit perceptions of expert disputes for 56 forecasts sampled from seven domains. People with low education, or with low self-reported topic knowledge, were most likely to attribute disputes to expert incompetence. People with higher self-reported knowledge tended to attribute disputes to expert bias due to financial or ideological reasons. The more highly educated and cognitively able were most likely to attribute disputes to natural factors, such as the irreducible complexity and randomness of the phenomenon. Our results show that laypeople tend to use coherent—albeit potentially overly narrow—attributions to make sense of expert disputes and that these explanations vary across different segments of the population. We highlight several important implications for scientists, risk managers, and decision makers.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)325-338
    Number of pages14
    JournalPublic Understanding of Science
    Volume26
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

    Fingerprint

    Dissent and Disputes
    Managers
    Education
    expert
    trend
    layperson
    online survey
    psychometrics
    decision maker
    Dispute
    Public Perception
    manager
    Psychometrics
    present
    education
    Population

    Keywords

    • attribution
    • expert disagreement
    • forecasting
    • public beliefs

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Communication
    • Developmental and Educational Psychology
    • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

    Cite this

    Public perceptions of expert disagreement : Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world? / Dieckmann, Nathan; Johnson, Branden B.; Gregory, Robin; Mayorga, Marcus; Han, Paul K.J.; Slovic, Paul.

    In: Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, 01.04.2017, p. 325-338.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Dieckmann, Nathan ; Johnson, Branden B. ; Gregory, Robin ; Mayorga, Marcus ; Han, Paul K.J. ; Slovic, Paul. / Public perceptions of expert disagreement : Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?. In: Public Understanding of Science. 2017 ; Vol. 26, No. 3. pp. 325-338.
    @article{a7b87828cabf4dabb9b491e20c989126,
    title = "Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?",
    abstract = "Expert disputes can present laypeople with several challenges including trying to understand why such disputes occur. In an online survey of the US public, we used a psychometric approach to elicit perceptions of expert disputes for 56 forecasts sampled from seven domains. People with low education, or with low self-reported topic knowledge, were most likely to attribute disputes to expert incompetence. People with higher self-reported knowledge tended to attribute disputes to expert bias due to financial or ideological reasons. The more highly educated and cognitively able were most likely to attribute disputes to natural factors, such as the irreducible complexity and randomness of the phenomenon. Our results show that laypeople tend to use coherent—albeit potentially overly narrow—attributions to make sense of expert disputes and that these explanations vary across different segments of the population. We highlight several important implications for scientists, risk managers, and decision makers.",
    keywords = "attribution, expert disagreement, forecasting, public beliefs",
    author = "Nathan Dieckmann and Johnson, {Branden B.} and Robin Gregory and Marcus Mayorga and Han, {Paul K.J.} and Paul Slovic",
    year = "2017",
    month = "4",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1177/0963662515603271",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "26",
    pages = "325--338",
    journal = "Public Understanding of Science",
    issn = "0963-6625",
    publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
    number = "3",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Public perceptions of expert disagreement

    T2 - Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?

    AU - Dieckmann, Nathan

    AU - Johnson, Branden B.

    AU - Gregory, Robin

    AU - Mayorga, Marcus

    AU - Han, Paul K.J.

    AU - Slovic, Paul

    PY - 2017/4/1

    Y1 - 2017/4/1

    N2 - Expert disputes can present laypeople with several challenges including trying to understand why such disputes occur. In an online survey of the US public, we used a psychometric approach to elicit perceptions of expert disputes for 56 forecasts sampled from seven domains. People with low education, or with low self-reported topic knowledge, were most likely to attribute disputes to expert incompetence. People with higher self-reported knowledge tended to attribute disputes to expert bias due to financial or ideological reasons. The more highly educated and cognitively able were most likely to attribute disputes to natural factors, such as the irreducible complexity and randomness of the phenomenon. Our results show that laypeople tend to use coherent—albeit potentially overly narrow—attributions to make sense of expert disputes and that these explanations vary across different segments of the population. We highlight several important implications for scientists, risk managers, and decision makers.

    AB - Expert disputes can present laypeople with several challenges including trying to understand why such disputes occur. In an online survey of the US public, we used a psychometric approach to elicit perceptions of expert disputes for 56 forecasts sampled from seven domains. People with low education, or with low self-reported topic knowledge, were most likely to attribute disputes to expert incompetence. People with higher self-reported knowledge tended to attribute disputes to expert bias due to financial or ideological reasons. The more highly educated and cognitively able were most likely to attribute disputes to natural factors, such as the irreducible complexity and randomness of the phenomenon. Our results show that laypeople tend to use coherent—albeit potentially overly narrow—attributions to make sense of expert disputes and that these explanations vary across different segments of the population. We highlight several important implications for scientists, risk managers, and decision makers.

    KW - attribution

    KW - expert disagreement

    KW - forecasting

    KW - public beliefs

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018761974&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018761974&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1177/0963662515603271

    DO - 10.1177/0963662515603271

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 26346339

    AN - SCOPUS:85018761974

    VL - 26

    SP - 325

    EP - 338

    JO - Public Understanding of Science

    JF - Public Understanding of Science

    SN - 0963-6625

    IS - 3

    ER -